Atty. RYAN ALVIN R.

ACOSTA
Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs
Office of the President
Malacañang, Manila

Dear Deputy Executive Secretary Acosta: 

This has reference to your letter dated 13 July 2021 requesting for this
Department’s comments and recommendation on the enrolled House Bill
(HB) No. 6255 entitled: “AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-
FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ROMEO
CABRESTANTE SERVANDO, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS ROLIN
BROADCASTING ENTERPRISES, INC., UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8202,
ENTITLED ‘AN ACT GRANTING ROMEO CABRESTANTE SERVANDO, A
FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND
MAINTAIN RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE
PROVINCE OF PALAWAN,’” which will lapse into law on 13 August 2021 if
not vetoed or acted upon by the President.

As the title suggests, the proposed bill seeks to renew for another 25
years the franchise to construct, install, establish, operate and maintain radio
and television broadcasting stations in the province of Palawan, which was
granted to Romeo Cabrestante Servando, now known as Rolin Broadcasting
Enterprises, Inc., by Republic Act (RA) No. 8202.

After a careful perusal of the provisions of the proposed legislation, this

Department interposes no objection to the approval thereof by the
President.

Under Section 24, Article II1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

(Constitution), the State itself recognizes the vital role of communication and
information in nation-building.

Relevant thereto, Section 11, Article XII 2 of the same Constitution

lodged with the legislature the power and authority to grant franchise 3, which
necessarily includes the power and authority to renew or extend the same, to
public utilities,4 such as, radio and television broadcasting stations so they
could operate as such.
1
Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
2
National Economy and Patrimony.
3
Francisco, Jr, et al. v. Toll Regulatory Board, et al., G.R Nos. 166910, 169917, 173630, and
183599, 19 October 2010.
 In ABS-CBN Corporation v. National Telecommunications
Commission5 citing Associated Communications & Wireless Services – United
Broadcasting Networks v. National Telecommunications Commission,6 the
Supreme Court held that a franchise, in its broad meaning, is a special
privilege to do certain things conferred by government on an individual or
corporation, and which does not belong to citizens generally of common right.
And, insofar as the great powers of government are concerned, a franchise is
basically a legislative grant of a special privilege to a person.
Nonetheless, for the Court, a franchise is a privilege granted by the State
through its legislative body subject to regulation by the State itself by
virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies.

To repeat, Section 11, Article XII 7 of the Constitution vests with the
legislature the power and authority to grant legislative franchise to a public
utility like radio and television networks. It further provides for the limitations
and/or requirements for the grant of such franchise. In fine, Section 11,
Article XII of the Constitution states:

Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of

authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted
except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations
organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum
of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise,
certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer
period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be
granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to
amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common
good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in
public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign
investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be
limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive
and managing officers of such corporation or association must be
citizens of the Philippines.

The subject enrolled HB No. 6255 verily complies with the limitations
and/or requirements set forth in the above-quoted constitutional provision.
Among others, the renewal or extension of the franchise granted to the
grantee is only for a period of 25 years; 8 the grantee’s franchise is also
4
The business and operations of a public utility are imbued with public interest. In a very real
sense, a public utility is engaged in public service--providing basic commodities and services
indispensable to the interest of the general public. For this reason, a public utility submits to
the regulation of government authorities and surrenders certain business prerogatives xxx
(Republic of the Philippines v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. Nos. 141314 and 141369, 09
April 2003). Public utilities are privately owned and operated businesses whose service are
essential to the general public. They are enterprises which specially cater to the needs of the
public and conduce to their comfort and convenience. As such, public utility services are
impressed with public interest and concern (Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr.,
et al., G.R. No. 115381, 23 December 1994).
5
G.R. No. 252119, 25 August 2020.
6
G.R No. 144109, 17 February 2003.
7
National Economy and Patrimony.
8
Section 6 (Term of Franchise) of HB No. 6255.

2
subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by Congress when the public
interest so requires;9 and lastly, the franchise is not exclusive in character. 10

Further, the subject franchise provides that the same shall be subject
to the provisions of the Constitution and applicable laws, rules and
regulations.

This would include compliance with Paragraph 1, Section 11, Article

XVI (General Provisions) of the 1987 Constitution which limits the ownership
and management of mass media to citizens of the Philippines, or to
corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by
such citizens. The said provision states that:

Section 11. The ownership and management of mass media shall be

limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives
or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens.The
Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass
media when the public interest so requires. No combinations in
restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed.

The provision of the 1987 Constitution limiting to Filipinos the right to

operate mass media is one of the many safeguards of our national integrity
and patrimony. The distinctive feature of any mass media undertaking is the
dissemination of information and ideas to the public, or a portion thereof. The
citizenship requirement is intended to prevent the use of such facility by aliens
to influence public opinion to the detriment of the best interests of the nation. 11

Considering the foregoing, there is no cogent and compelling reason

for this Department to challenge the passage of the subject legislation.

For your consideration.

Very truly yours,

MENARDO I. GUEVARRA
Secretary

Legal: GOO.MGQ.NMM
20210715 – Enrolled HB No. 6255

9
Section 15 (Repealability and Nonexclusivity Clause) of HB No. 6255.
10
Id.
11
DOJ Opinion No. 010, s. 1996.